Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

Before a certain pre-warp point, you ignore a planet except for an occasional flyby and passive monitoring

I truly believe that just about every pre~warp inhabited planet, regardless of it's stage of development, is going to be completely COVERED in researchers. Sociologists and anthropologists. Why content yourself with studying remote scans when you can live among the people of any historical period you choose for years, even decades, before retiring back to your homeworld and writing your doctoral dissertation.

And yes, they'll be careful.

Sci wrote:

Wouldn't it just be easier to believe that Bozeman, Montana, in the Star Trek Universe is located in a different part of the state than its real-world counterpart?

Yes.

And it still can't be Malmstrom, because it's far too small. Malmstrom AFB is much larger than the small complex seen in ST:FC.

Sure it can, in the movie we saw just one silo in central Montana, one silo doesn't make for a "complex." Malmstrom has hundreds of silos scattered over thousands of square miles, that is what a complex is.

I still don't see the point in insisting that the facility be a real and preexisting one - after all, the surface construct used to describe it is a set rather than a real location. At some point, the mimicry is going to break down. Why not forget all about it from the get-go?

We aren't really trying to claim that the McKinley rocket base of TOS fame would be Kennedy Space Center by a different name, even if in the real world Kennedy was the only place in the universe capable of launching a Saturn 5. It's not the same universe. The Trek universe Earth in the 1960s simply had more and better spaceflight facilities; it probably had more and better nuclear missile launch facilities in the 2060s, too.

The problem with this notion is that real history defies it. The world's cultures spent most of history coming into contact with strange and alien cultures whose common humanity they did not immediately recognize. The cultures that exist today are the descendants of cultures that were routinely making first contact with cultures that they considered the equivalent to what we would call extraterrestrial today.

Eh, I'm still partly with Penta on this one. I see your point but my gut tells me meeting alien life is something qualitatively different than anything that has happened in the past.

10. Limit how much they have to take in: Don't use a transporter, use a shuttlecraft if you can, to transport personnel. Don't use a replicator when you can cook real food...

I really don't think this is an issue at all. A species that has developed warp technology is going to have already speculated about the possible existence of aliens, and they're inevitably going to have developed the idea that many different technologies far in advance of their own may exist. The only real threshold is finding out with certainty that aliens exist; everything else is just a matter of degree.

I think this is more a point of trying not to scare or wow the species you are meeting with your superior technology, of trying to meet them on a as level playing field as possible.

Surely whatever else the Federation can do, it can do the simple work of ensuring that no one on the planet is going hungry anymore.

I don't think anyone is insinuating that the Federation wouldn't try it's best to do that. Just that even with all it's awesome technology, resources will always be limited and eradicating something like poverty will take a lot of time. Just like the Federation couldn't help Bajor recover overnight.

You keep returning to this theme of "Don't tell them too much or else they'll freak out." I find that entire concept really disturbing...

...The basic problem with that entire idea is that it's built on the implicit premise that the Federation is inherently superior to the culture being contacted. More specifically, that its people are inherently to the contacted cultures' people...

...The Federation shouldn't be in the business of holding information back that doesn't itself threaten Federation security. If it isn't classified, it should be available to the Zoglians.

I still think it's sensible to limit the amount of information you give them all at once, for several reasons. People of the Federation have had decades if not centuries to adapt to and learn to live with some things. You can't get something like that overnight, you can't graft a centuries more advanced culture to the local culture just like that. Sure, give them everything with time - but not attempting to control the effects even a little is iresponsible.

It has nothing to do with 'superiority'. If an ancient Greek suddenly popped out of a time machine next to you, you wouldn't try to teach him quantum theory or give him access to a complicated modern appliance the very next day. You'd overwhelm him. And it doesn't mean he's inferior to you or any less smart than you. He just has a different starting position and you need to give him time to adapt.

One more point. If you give them everything on a platter at once, you'll be robbing them of a chance to further develop by themselves, you'll stiffle their own creativity and progress.

As for the Borg example... Honestly? I do think it's better not to tell them at once. I mean, imagine if aliens landed on Earth tomorrow and told us an unstoppable enemy is roaming around. It would be mass histeria - and it wouldn't help us deal with the Borg one bit.

I did notice the thing about 'What if the locals have their own protocols?', though, and in lieu of blinking confusedly will try to answer that.

I think that the Federation, because bureaucracy tends to fall into this trap even when they shouldn't, probably plans for a situation like they faced when they were the ones who were the locals; Which, in the human context, means we might have reasons to think there are aliens, we might even have notional plans for an alien contact (done by the same folks planning, for example, wars and other crisis responses, either as a training exercise or because things got slow at the office one day), but those plans weren't designed for real implementation in any case, are never updated (let alone exercised), and are utterly useless...All because even if logic suggests there might be aliens, nobody really thinks (or is likely to admit they think) it's at all likely. Until, of course, it happens.

Surely whatever else the Federation can do, it can do the simple work of ensuring that no one on the planet is going hungry anymore.

I don't think anyone is insinuating that the Federation wouldn't try it's best to do that. Just that even with all it's awesome technology, resources will always be limited and eradicating something like poverty will take a lot of time. Just like the Federation couldn't help Bajor recover overnight.

The Federation could offer knowledge in areas like agriculture and managing resources. However it would hardly be the Federation government's place to ensure anything on the surface of that world.

Cicero wrote:

That I can recall, we've never seen the Federation withhold information from a culture that it considered equal to its own. It seems to me that withholding knowledge from an equal, or acceding to the censoring desires of its powerful structures is

Of course we've seen the Federation with hold knowledge from equals.

One of the thing that came out of the series Enterprise was that at the time Vulcan Starship-cruisers moved quite comfortably at warp factor seven, that was the Vulcan Starship-cruiser's cruising speed. Well over a hundred years later, during TOS, the Starship Enterprise moves quite comfortably at warp factor six, that is it's cruising speed. Not only aren't the Vulcan's sharing current knowledge and technology, they're not even sharing their old knowledge and technology with the rest of the Federation's members.

Captain Janeway made quite the point of not sharing replicator technology with warp-capable cultures. So censorship is very consistent with the Federation government's displayed philosophies and behavior. Also with the philosophies and behavior of individual Members (like the Vulcans).

Penta wrote:

Even they aren't as assiduous about it as the Feds though, because of internal issues (in the Klingon case) and their own xenophobia/isolationism (in the Romulan case).

While it is possible to have a benevolent government that is referred to as an "empire," my impression is that the term benevolent applies to neither the Klingons nor the Romulans. Non-canon conventional thinking is that, after the Romulans colonized Romulus, they set about colonizing, conquering and subjugating the surrounding star systems. The Klingon pretty much the same, also the Klingons basically have a ongoing slave culture, even aboard their ships.

Sci wrote:

... for the Federation to make a planet a protectorate without its full, open consent in the form of a treaty with its legitimate government(s).

If The New Race's (TNR's) star system exists well inside the Federations boundaries, if it's basically completely surrounded by the Federation, then the Federation government is going to be be keeping the Klingons, Romulans, others away from TNR because the Federation is simply keeping those races out of it's space. It makes no difference if TNR is prewarp or warp-capable. It like when Italy protects it's borders, Italy is unofficial protecting The Holy See. However that doesn't make The Holy See a protectorate. Once the TNR begins to make their own alliances, that could change.

Penta wrote:

Politically, the planet has (ideally) a single stable government with authority over the entire territory held by the species on planet and beyond the planet, or an intergovernmental organization that can do the same thing. There might still be conflicts here or there, some perhaps barely under control, but no wars breaking out;

I don't buy that last part. If there are some conflicts still out there barely under control, then the planet is by definition still politically unstable and disunited, and a flare-up of a local war is inevitable without Federation mediation.

But it doesn't mean the entire planet is out of control, it mean isolated regions are. On Earth today there are seventeen plus "hot" wars ongoing, but as a whole the majority of the Earth is politically stable, even in some of the counrties engaged in those wars the populace is largely unaffected. Other places on Earth have ongoing cool and cold wars, I mentioned briefly up-thread the North/South Korea conflict, if the Federation will not initiate First Contact if two countries are currently are war, well the Koreas are. When the Vulcan's land in 2063, the Koreas still might be at war.

Penta wrote:

a single stable government with authority over ...

A single world government is hardly a panacea for ending all conflicts, the country of Mexico has (theoretically) authority over all it's territory, yet one of the hot wars I included in my numbering was the one in their northern border regions.

Sci wrote:

The Federation shouldn't be in the business of holding information back

The Federation government shouldn't be in the business of dishing up information either or for that matter giving detailed briefings.. The businesses in the Federation might have something like a interstellar internet information/news service, maybe TNR should look into a subscription.

Both Penta and Sci seem to view first contact as a diplomatic event, a meeting between two governments. In Sci case, there' are opportunities for treaties and agreements.

Penta seems to see first contact as obligation to bring a new warp-capable culture up to speed with the rest of the galaxy within a few generation, possible with the idea that they automatically are potential candidates for Federation Membership.

Personal, I see first contact as merely a initial meet and greet. More of a welcoming someone new to the neighborhood environment. Instead of a elaborate briefing on galactic politics, it would actual be very much like what we saw near the end of the movie First Contact, with the social interact between Zephram Cochrane and the Vulcan (Captain?).

This would also be the perfect venue to inquire as to whether TNR might simply wish to be left alone.

As much as possible this should be a happy occasion, later there will be plenty of time for formalities, assuming TNR even engages in them. The first contact parties (to use a term) would be composed of socialists, not diplomats, in addition there can be individuals from the Federation Member world's in the immediate vicinity, as well as nearby warp-capable non-Federation members. People from the stars that TNR's ancestors knew were closest tto them. People who live in star systems that TNR can now reach using only their brand new warp drive, without any help from the Federation government.

This will provide TNR with the self-confidence that, should they choose too, they can stay independent of outside influences, at least until they "get their feet under themselves."

If later they want the Federation to completely reorder their civilization without any input from them ... I guess they can ask.

------------------

The OP for this thread was; "New member integration in the UFP," we have kind of gotten hung up on the subject of first contact (where we can stay), It would be interesting to consider how a actual new member does integrate into the entire Federation, and not just the government. As well as how the Federation integrates and changes with each new member. Surely the Federation that original existed with just six members would be long gone by the time we get to one hundred and fifty plus!

I should really be clearer. I see First Contact as both an event and a process.

There's the event of first contact (which should indeed be a happy occasion, if mostly in hindsight)...And then follows the process of first contact. We've been talking about both, I think.

See, I see FC the event (or sequence of events) being something one celebrates only in retrospect, maybe not for years afterwards. While it's happening, even the most well-disposed locals are going to be pretty scared, probably. Might not show it, but the fear will be there.

FC as a process, the process of "saying hello" and introducing the new folks to the fact that the galaxy is suddenly a lot bigger than they thought it was...Probably takes years to go from something tentative to something relatively normal where you might not say relations are still being established.

But yes, that is side-tracking us from new member integration. Before we begin that, though...Has it ever clearly been laid out what the conditions for UFP membership to be granted are, canonically? I'm coming out of a migrane, and don't fully recall.

...I'm just going to say that there are plenty of points in this thread where Neozeks expresses my thinking better than I do, his last post being a great example. WTF is up with that?

It's obvious. I have mind-reading powers.

Penta wrote:

Has it ever clearly been laid out what the conditions for UFP membership to be granted are, canonically? I'm coming out of a migrane, and don't fully recall.

Not really. We do know caste based discrimination is a no-no (yes, someone will bring up Ardana, but it can be argued that was a special case). Also, a unified world government is very much prefered, but I think it's not an absolute requirement. Aside from that, if you believe the Federation is a liberal social democracy, as I do, I suppose it would be respect for basic rights, social justice, general stability of the society etc. The exact requirements are probably very detailed and technical and the process probably lasts a long time in the best of cases, not to mention the more unusuall ones. To use the EU as an example, Iceland is a fully developed Western country, yet it's admission into the EU will still take years - and we're not even talking about completely alien cultures and full federalism here.

Why would anyone what to join the Federation in the first place, as opposed to just having a series of treaties and agreements?

Why would the Federation even want (or is it need) new members? They already have many dozens.

neozeks wrote:

Penta wrote:

Has it ever clearly been laid out what the conditions for UFP membership to be granted are, canonically? I'm coming out of a migrane, and don't fully recall.

Not really. We do know caste based discrimination is a no-no (yes, someone will bring up Ardana, but it can be argued that was a special case).

The argument could also be made that Adana wasn't the special case, Bajor was. The Federation might only have a problem with religious based caste systems, not caste systems in general. If hypothetically 140 Federation members had some sort of caste systems and 10 did not, that would make Earth and the few others the odd ones out, not Adana.

With their rigid societal structure it would not be hard to imagine the Vulcans to currently have a caste system. Perhaps the main reason Sarek was so piss off at Spock was that he refused to go into "the family business."

Also, a unified world government is very much prefered, but I think it's not an absolute requirement.

Likely only a preference, the Federation government would need to have a body that they interfaced with during the procedure of admitting the new Member, after that the body could be dissolved and the Federation government would then interface solely through the Member's chosen representative. Once the Member is sending a representative it doesn't make any difference if the Member has one government or a thousand.

Aside from that, if you believe the Federation is a liberal social democracy, as I do,

It might be helpful in this discussion to indicate who exactly we're talking about, there's

The Federation government.
The Federation as a whole (the populace culture-society excepting the government)
The Members as a part of the Federation government
The Members as internal governments

Strictly speaking, I actual don't believe the Federation government is a liberal social democracy, I think it's a simple democracy. I believe the Federation government lacks the ability and authority to even be "liberal social." I do believe many of the individual Member governments however are liberal social democracies, but certainly not every one of them.

Member don't have to conform.

And that's one of the many reasons why you as a non-Federation member would want to become a Federation Member.

if you believe ... as I do

Most of the government functions within the Federation are handled below the Federation government level, the Federation government is solely a government in interstellar matters, it exercises no "internal sovereignty" upon it's Members. So when a single planet, a small multi-star republic or an association of star systems (multiple species) joins the Federation as a new Member or new Members, they lose nothing, only gain. Their, again, internal sovereignty is intact, their governmental system remains the same after they join the Federation as it was before. The Federation government only has authority over their interactions with other Federation members and the galaxy as a whole.

Why would the prospective new Member agree to give up a portion of it's sovereignty? They don't.

And that's one of the many reasons why you as a non-Federation member would want to become a Federation Member.

I suppose it would be respect for basic rights, social justice, general stability of the society etc.

The Federation government could neither require nor impose these upon the Members. If your society was bad enough to start with, then the Federation government wouldn't consider you as a Member in the first place. Or separately if your culture changed enough through time, the other Members could implore you to change or basically "vote you out." But once a Member, the Federation government would lack the legal power to reach down into your social and government systems and make even the smallest of changes.

An example, Let's say the Federation government declared a certain cargo to be contraband. You couldn't ship that "whatever" around the Federation as a whole, However you could ship it inside your own star system and solely inbetween your collection of interstellar colonies. Again, you're internally sovereign.

If however another Member were to injure you (legal sense), then through the Federation you could receive satisfaction.

And that's a couple of the many reasons why you as a non-Federation member would want to become a Federation Member.

The exact requirements are probably very detailed and technical and the process probably lasts a long time in the best of cases,

I would imagine that the evaluation process is very extensive, and likely a bit intrusive. The Federation government's many investigation teams would be everywhere, realistically for years. Examining not just the government, but the society in general, the cultural institutions.

It would be analogous to buying a used car that you would be forbidden to repair. The most you could do is junk it.

And the investigation would of course be two way, I would think the potential new Member would want to look deeply into the Federation government too, to "look at the books."

To use the EU as an example, Iceland is

Imagine if Iceland wanted to join the United States instead of the EU and one day they show up at the CIA and insist on looking unrestricted through the files.

We can't always assume that a potential new Member is one who only recently achieved warp flight, the species may have possessed warp flight for hundreds or even thousands of years before meeting the Federation, and the Federation has only be interacting with them for a few decades.
Federation, from the Latin: foedus, foederis or 'covenant.' The English word covenant means "a coming together." Covenants can include treaties, alliances, agreements, compacts, pledges, mutual agreements, promises, and undertakings on behalf of another.

Federation; A body formed by a number of nations, states, societies, businesses, unions, communities, etc., each retaining control of its own internal affairs.

The argument could also be made that Adana wasn't the special case, Bajor was. The Federation might only have a problem with religious based caste systems, not caste systems in general.

That would hardly be logical on the part of the Federation. Why single out just religious cases?

Once the Member is sending a representative it doesn't make any difference if the Member has one government or a thousand.

But it does. Why would the Federation want to have as it's member something as uneffective as the today's UN? Every time the governments within can't agree on something (which is most of the time), the representative on the Federation Council would find his hands tied.

Strictly speaking, I actual don't believe the Federation government is a liberal social democracy, I think it's a simple democracy. I believe the Federation government lacks the ability and authority to even be "liberal social." I do believe many of the individual Member governments however are liberal social democracies, but certainly not every one of them.

T'Girl, I know you're partial to the 'confederation' view of the UFP but I think history has showed confederations do not work in the long term (I don't think there's really a single true confederation left today). They are simply ineffective and eventually either disolve or turn into proper federations.

Why would the prospective new Member agree to give up a portion of it's sovereignty?

Why are EU members ready to give up a portion of their sovereignty to the EU? The EU isn't even a federation, it's currently a strange mix of federation/confederation/IGO, yet it has the power to influence and change, by legal force if neccessary, the systems and policies of it's members.

Imagine if Iceland wanted to join the United States instead of the EU and one day they show up at the CIA and insist on looking unrestricted through the files.

Umm, do states in the US (or their governments) get access to such things at all? Or is it restricted just to the federal govt (and whoever they authorize)? And anyway, if you're not ready to trust them with your intelligence data, you won't let them in in the first place.

The argument could also be made that Adana wasn't the special case, Bajor was. The Federation might only have a problem with religious based caste systems, not caste systems in general.

That would hardly be logical on the part of the Federation. Why single out just religious cases?

Oh it isn't logical, but neither is treating two different planets by two different standards, the only difference between Adana and Bajor would (at least on the surface) be that one caste system is class based and the other religious based.

Actual the discussion between Sisko and Kira about the Federation not admitting Bajor if there was a caste system does prove part of my theory, if the Federation had the power to change it Members laws and societies, then all the Federation would have to do is admit Bajor with a caste system and then dissolve the caste system. The effect would be the same as admitting Bajor without a caste system in the first place.

If I'm right and Bajor had been made a Federation Member while a caste system was in place, then there would be nothing the Federation government could have done about it, just like it couldn't have done anything about Adana's. And that assumes that the Federation even has a general prohibition against caste systems.

Once the Member is sending a representative it doesn't make any difference if the Member has one government or a thousand.

But it does. Why would the Federation want to have as it's member something as uneffective as the today's UN? Every time the governments within can't agree on something (which is most of the time), the representative on the Federation Council would find his hands tied.

If a group with too many voices can't make decisions, then how do you think the Federation council get anything done with it one hundred and fifty voices ?

T'Girl, I know you're partial to the 'confederation' view of the UFP but I think history has showed confederations do not work in the long term (I don't think there's really a single true confederation left today). They are simply ineffective and eventually either disolve or turn into proper federations.

The difference would be that the Federation government isn't a true central national government, it would have few of the traditional duties, remember each of the member planet already have established national governments, either one or many. The same government that the various worlds have before joining, is the same government after, none of the duties and responsibilities are transferred to the Federation. The Federation government's only responsibilities are limited specific areas.

Imagine a chain of islands in the middle of the ocean, the Federation is only responsible for the deep water, the members are responsible for the land and the shallows.

Why are EU members ready to give up a portion of their sovereignty to the EU?

Considering the draconian prime directive interpretation of the 24th century, the federation integrating new members (aka interfering) is practically a plot hole:

Preparing cultures for membership in the federation by trying to steer their values (by cultural exchange) - blatant violation of the prime directive!
A society enters the federation when all its members ask for membeership? No society has only one opinion - there are many voices. And majority opinion is not enough to justify federation interference (as proven in the klingon civil war).
Giving new members technology more advanced than their own - blasphemy!

Letting species die rather than interfere because...if you interfere the entire species will commit suicide? Ridiculous! During our entire history, there is NO SINGLE CASE in which a society was 'overwhelmed' and commited mass suicide, regardless of what it was confronted with.

Hell - it's a wonder the federation actually explores (interfering!) and doesn't stay at home, hidden under cloacking fields - just to make sure no other people will see it and be influenced by the federation and its values!

A society enters the federation when all its members ask for membership?

In two of the early Star Trek novels, Price of the Phoenix and Fate of the Phoenix, a planet is invited to join the Federation, there was supposed to be a planet wide discussion, followed by a vote whether or not to join. The end result was the entire planet descended into civil war as the populace divided into factions.

all its members ask for membership

You'll never get one hundred percent of a populace to agree to anything, a clear majority probably would suffice. Or the decision might be made by the existing leadership, if the their political system allows them to make that level of decision.

It's possible that the Federation might require a plebiscite as a condition on membership.

Considering the draconian prime directive interpretation of the 24th century, the federation integrating new members (aka interfering) is practically a plot hole:

Interpretation of the PD does seem to change over the course of the multiple series. Possible the PD is concidered part of the Federation government's foreign policy, as various Presidents and foreign secretaries come and go the PD get reinterpreted, rewritten and it various sections assigned different levels of priorities. Every few months Starfleet Captains will receive the latest updates and revisions.

In "Redemption", the legally elected klingon government (supported by most of the population) asked for federation help against, essentially, terrorists.
The federation refused to interfere, because stopping terrorists is an 'internal matter'.

If this 'internal matter' was beyond the federation's authority, why should romulan help for the klingons be anything the federation can interfere with?
Now the federation can't interfere in internal politics, but has free reign to interfere in external politics (that do not involve it?)? What's the justification for this division?

And, of course, an romulan-klingon alliance would be disastruous for the federation.
The federation's refusal to interfere was suicidal.

Picard saved the day only because the romulans acted equally opaque:
One wonders why, after Picard&co found the romulans, Sela didn't say:
"You found me. Big deal. I just returned from your ship, Picard. You know nothing you didn't already know.
This changes nothing - this is not hide and seek; I have no reason to return just becase you see me.
If you have the balls, open fire.
If not, get out of my way. I have a war to win. And, when I'm done, I'll come with my new klingon pals and start taking federation worlds apart"

In "Redemption", the legally elected klingon government (supported by most of the population) asked for federation help against, essentially, terrorists.

.
Kor: "Worf, you've been living among this democratic rabble for too long. I know your bloodline. We both come from noble Houses. Among our people that still counts for something."
.

Klingons obtain a position on their council either through family bloodlines or by rising to prominence. There are no elections by the Klingon general population.

And speaking of our good old friend Kor, at one point in his career, Kor was the Klingon ambassador to Vulcan. Not a Consul-General running a consulate, but a full ambassador. That means the Klingons had a embassy on Vulcan, therefor the Vulcan government had a separate sovereignty from the Federation government.